It was a bit boring... but I haven't seen any of the movies yet, so I guess that was the main reason. A lot of things seemed to be a bit old fashioned, but it was better than last year. James Franco was so horrible back then.

When I haven't watched the nominated movies I am most interested in the minor categories (like short films and special effects), because I like to see people win who have never been to Hollywood before. Most of the whole show is scripted and they always are in a hurry, so it's nice to have some true emotions in between. And I liked the old guy (sorry, can't remember his name), who won the award for best supporting actor. Though he only might have won because of his age . And the best supporting actress was really cute as well.

"FBI spokesman Jason Pack said there was no indication so far of any connection to terrorism."

Jesus, they're doing it wrong already. This is exactly the same as terrorism. All that statement really means is that the guy wasn't a Muslim, hoorah, this country does need guns after all in case THE REAL THREAT ever happens. Urghhhhhh.

No one in any position of authority ever thought this attack had anything to do with Muslims. They just like to mention the possibity of a link, because an enemy with an unknown brown face is so much easier to identify against than some clever handsome white guy with no immediately identifiable motive. I mean, Muslims blow themselves up every five minutes, right? But when a white guy does it, it must just be some sort of unexplainable administrative blip, right? So fear not, as long as there's no connection to Terrorism then everone can breathe a sigh of relief and keep them trigger fingers itchy for the second one of them darned terrorists shows up on the scene.

Damn, I wish I wasn't this cynical. But hell, both Obama and Romney have to try to get themselves elected before long. Must be all sorts of uncomfortable having to gloss over this issue again so close to election time.

So true. And not just the muslims... when I read the news and especially the comments I feel like a lot of people react really strange. They demand taking responsibility from the creators of the movie. It seems like it is cared more about the fact that it is the Dark Knight Rises than the victims. Those people were not killed by or because of a movie... it was a crazy guy with weapons he should not be allowed to have. How many more have to die before enough people understand that it is that simple?

"FBI spokesman Jason Pack said there was no indication so far of any connection to terrorism."

Jesus, they're doing it wrong already. This is exactly the same as terrorism. All that statement really means is that the guy wasn't a Muslim, hoorah, this country does need guns after all in case THE REAL THREAT ever happens. Urghhhhhh.

That's practically what my brother, dad, and I said watching the horrid early morning news coverage. It's really disgusting, man. It's as if they want people to belive the only "terrorists" are brown people going, "Alahalahalahalah!" so they can try to justify saying they fight the "War on Terror". As if that's even gramatically or physically possible. Also, there have been reports that James Holmes was dressed as The Joker, according to New York City Police Commissioner Kelly, because he had his hair painted red. "Nerd Point: The Joker's hair is green, not red."

"FBI spokesman Jason Pack said there was no indication so far of any connection to terrorism."

Jesus, they're doing it wrong already. This is exactly the same as terrorism. All that statement really means is that the guy wasn't a Muslim, hoorah, this country does need guns after all in case THE REAL THREAT ever happens. Urghhhhhh.

That's practically what my brother, dad, and I said watching the horrid early morning news coverage. It's really disgusting, man. It's as if they want people to belive the only "terrorists" are brown people going, "Alahalahalahalah!" so they can try to justify saying they fight the "War on Terror". As if that's even gramatically or physically possible. Also, there have been reports that James Holmes was dressed as The Joker, according to New York City Police Commissioner Kelly, because he had his hair painted red. "Nerd Point: The Joker's hair is green, not red."

About the whole "Joker" thing. The media seem to be trying to force blame on movies and comic books (they even brought up 'violent video games' as a cause. I thought that argument died years ago.) for him just being a total psychopath. A newspaper around here is directly accusing a scene in The Dark Knight Returns (the scene where a guy shoots up a porn theatre because of Led Zeppelin) for the massacre.

This movie - and even Batman as a pop culture icon in general - might forever be associated with this incident, which is a shame because it's a damn good movie.

"FBI spokesman Jason Pack said there was no indication so far of any connection to terrorism."

Jesus, they're doing it wrong already. This is exactly the same as terrorism. All that statement really means is that the guy wasn't a Muslim, hoorah, this country does need guns after all in case THE REAL THREAT ever happens. Urghhhhhh.

not to sound like an ass, but he meant that there was no group of them plotting to do more damage elsewhere.

"FBI spokesman Jason Pack said there was no indication so far of any connection to terrorism."

Jesus, they're doing it wrong already. This is exactly the same as terrorism. All that statement really means is that the guy wasn't a Muslim, hoorah, this country does need guns after all in case THE REAL THREAT ever happens. Urghhhhhh.

not to sound like an ass, but he meant that there was no group of them plotting to do more damage elsewhere.

"No indication so far" is not the same as "definitely not the case". Either there AREN'T others involved in the plot... or there ARE, but they don't know about them yet, so it's a meaningless statement either way. But don't think there aren't ulterior motives all the same - if they downplay the terrorism angle, then it seems less like a problem that needs to be fixed. As if people wandering into a public building and gunning down scores of innocents isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

Ah, right. No need to worry about the rampant availability of guns then, or the pressure-cooker political issues, or that next time it might be in a different sort of public space from a movie theatre. Good to know.

Adding extra security at this stage won't achieve anything beyond a lot of additional expense and aggravation for people who haven't done anything wrong. It's not going to make the victims any less dead, and it's unlikely to prevent anyone dedicated enough to causing mayhem in the future anyway (and how likely do you think a copycat attack is, really? I'm not expecting one, myself, but that's not because they've upped the number of bag searches). If you really think tightening security is the answer rather than reexamining the whole country's precarious relationship with firearms, then you're part of the problem here.

When I read comments on news pages it seems like a lot of Americans are really afraid of the possibility to loose their right to own weapons. They completely ignore the fact that in similar countries (we are not talking about war zones here) like in Europe it is NOT normal to own a gun and we do not feel less safe because of this or have more crimes. I would feel horrible if everybody in my street would own weapons. You never know who might freak out.After the shooting people even bought MORE guns... as if this would prevent anything. Imagine there had been another guy with a gun in this theater shooting back. More people would have died for sure... in the dark with the murderer wearing a bullet proof vest.

I understand it is an old tradition, but America is not the Wild West anymore. I have never been there, but I cannot believe you need a gun to survive everyday's life in this country while you do not need it in London or Berlin . So it is about time to be realistic about the dangers of the current laws. Are more lives destroyed by guns or are more saved? It is no shame to develop, every country has to go through changes because there are stupid old laws and traditions everywhere. Like Spain needs to get rid of their cruel bull fighting traditions or women need more rights in several Arabic countries.

its more complicated than that. guns are part of our culture, and remember, for every shooting like the one in Colorado there is a couple thousand families with guns who have never hurt anyone. also, lots of people are hunters and more shoot guns for sport. and if you outlaw them complety, well, worked so good for drugs and alcohol, right?

Stoning women to death for adultery is part of some countries' culture. Should we just leave it that way? Or should we accept that "it's part of our culture" in and of itself is not a justification for anything, ever?

Wade Zabel wrote:

and remember, for every shooting like the one in Colorado there is a couple thousand families with guns who have never hurt anyone.

So what do they need them for?

Wade Zabel wrote:

also, lots of people are hunters and more shoot guns for sport.

Like I could give a fuck about them. Anyone who NEEDS a gun for their JOB could surely get a permit for it. Anyone who WANTS a gun for their HOBBY can suck it up and find a new hobby.

Wade Zabel wrote:

and if you outlaw them complety, well, worked so good for drugs and alcohol, right?

Stupid analogy. The uses and effects are utterly different (Humans have been getting high since we lived in caves; it's a basic drive of our species. Owning weapons that can take out a room full of people in seconds? Not so much. And it's pretty hard to kill a cinema full of people with a bag of heroin), not to mention that drugs ARE illegal in the US, and so is alcohol in a lot of counties - they didn't solve those problems by legalising them either, did they?

Obviously, if the U.S. made private ownership of guns illegal, some people would still get hold of them and some people would still murder people with them. Note that that is SOME people, as in a few. Not the thousands per year they currently have. People make a similar argument about knives, and how knife crime would surely increase if guns were harder to get hold of, but again: pretty hard to kill a cinema full of people with a handful of knives.

I know you like gangsta culture, Wade, and probably think guns are very cool. They're just not necessary, is all, and the U.S. will continue to suffer massacres like this until people start to admit that.

Unfortunately there are SO many guns out there that those families cannot make up for the idiots who DO hurt others.

It is not made up that those guns are a huge problem and many people die because of them. In the United States in 2009 there were 3.0 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants. United Kingdom: 0.07 Germany: 0.2If this has nothing to do with the fact, that it is WAY easier to get a gun in the U.S. and that more people own them... how do you explain it then?

And just to make something clear: Of course it will be impossible to get rid of all those guns and the old fashioned traditions right now... people need to want it themselves, otherwise it will end in big chaos if the state tries to collect the weapons.But if they manage to do this in the future they will see it can work. Not every crime will be avoided, but the threshold to use a gun is way higher if they are treated as what they are: really dangerous and no regular household article.

and remember, for every shooting like the one in Colorado there is a couple thousand families with guns who have never hurt anyone.

So what do they need them for?

hunting, sport and alot of people collect them

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

guns are part of our culture

Stoning women to death for adultery is part of some countries' culture. Should we just leave it that way? Or should we accept that "it's part of our culture" in and of itself is not a justification for anything, ever?

Stoning women to death is different than guns

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

and if you outlaw them complety, well, worked so good for drugs and alcohol, right?

Stupid analogy. The uses and effects are utterly different

thats not the point, when alchool was illegelized in the 20's, did everyone magically stop using it?

Caribou wrote:

Obviously, if the U.S. made private ownership of guns illegal, some people would still get hold of them and some people would still murder people with them. Note that that is SOME people, as in a few. Not the thousands per year they currently have. People make a similar argument about knives, and how knife crime would surely increase if guns were harder to get hold of, but again: pretty hard to kill a cinema full of people with a handful of knives.

some? most people would get them. they would be about as hard to get as herion or crack. how hard is it to get shit on the black market. and it is hard to kill a cinema with knives, which is why he would have uses bombs or flamethrowers. (complety legal) if someone wants to shoot up a theater, they wont be discouraged by some words on paper.

and remember, for every shooting like the one in Colorado there is a couple thousand families with guns who have never hurt anyone.

So what do they need them for?

hunting, sport and alot of people collect them

So what do they need them for?

Wade Zabel wrote:

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

guns are part of our culture

Stoning women to death for adultery is part of some countries' culture. Should we just leave it that way? Or should we accept that "it's part of our culture" in and of itself is not a justification for anything, ever?

Stoning women to death is different than guns

Of course it is. That's not important here though, I'm talking about the "it's right to do it because it's part of our culture" mentality. Just because something is part of your culture does not make it right.

Wade Zabel wrote:

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

and if you outlaw them complety, well, worked so good for drugs and alcohol, right?

Stupid analogy. The uses and effects are utterly different

thats not the point, when alchool was illegelized in the 20's, did everyone magically stop using it?

All you're doing is restating your arguments without addressing any of mine. Get wasted has been a part of human existence since before recorded history. It's ingrained in us as a species. We simply do not need to own deadly weapons on any kind of base level, and it has been proved time and time again that the easier it is to get said weapons, the more they are used to kill innocent people.

Wade Zabel wrote:

Caribou wrote:

Obviously, if the U.S. made private ownership of guns illegal, some people would still get hold of them and some people would still murder people with them. Note that that is SOME people, as in a few. Not the thousands per year they currently have. People make a similar argument about knives, and how knife crime would surely increase if guns were harder to get hold of, but again: pretty hard to kill a cinema full of people with a handful of knives.

some? most people would get them. they would be about as hard to get as herion or crack.

By that logic, most people are buying heroin or crack.

If buying guns had the same sort of social stigma as buying drugs, then most people wouldn't bother. More than that: I can't speak for any other countries, but I can testify that here in the UK, buying almost any drug besides heroin or crack is - whilst still illegal - not really considered all that big a deal. Buying a gun, however, will make an awful lot of people immediately think you are a violent criminal. (Or a farmer. Neither is considered cool. )

Wade Zabel wrote:

and it is hard to kill a cinema with knives, which is why he would have uses bombs or flamethrowers. (complety legal) if someone wants to shoot up a theater, they wont be discouraged by some words on paper.

So how come this sort of thing happens every couple of years or so on average in the States, but very rarely anywhere else in the Western world? Every country has dangerous nutcases. You sure everything's alright over there?

and remember, for every shooting like the one in Colorado there is a couple thousand families with guns who have never hurt anyone.

So what do they need them for?

hunting, sport and alot of people collect them

So what do they need them for?

defense, and alot of people make their living off of hunting. i don't know how hard it is to find a job where you live, but it's not easy finding one here

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

guns are part of our culture

Stoning women to death for adultery is part of some countries' culture. Should we just leave it that way? Or should we accept that "it's part of our culture" in and of itself is not a justification for anything, ever?

Stoning women to death is different than guns

Of course it is. That's not important here though, I'm talking about the "it's right to do it because it's part of our culture" mentality. Just because something is part of your culture does not make it right.

your acting like im advocating mass murder. all im saying is that its not right to take something away that has been a part of our culture for so long because of a few assholes.

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

and if you outlaw them complety, well, worked so good for drugs and alcohol, right?

Stupid analogy. The uses and effects are utterly different

thats not the point, when alchool was illegelized in the 20's, did everyone magically stop using it?

All you're doing is restating your arguments without addressing any of mine. Get wasted has been a part of human existence since before recorded history. It's ingrained in us as a species. We simply do not need to own deadly weapons on any kind of base level, and it has been proved time and time again that the easier it is to get said weapons, the more they are used to kill innocent people.

murder has been a part of human existence way before drugs, and its not exactly easy to get guns in america.

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

Caribou wrote:

Obviously, if the U.S. made private ownership of guns illegal, some people would still get hold of them and some people would still murder people with them. Note that that is SOME people, as in a few. Not the thousands per year they currently have. People make a similar argument about knives, and how knife crime would surely increase if guns were harder to get hold of, but again: pretty hard to kill a cinema full of people with a handful of knives.

some? most people would get them. they would be about as hard to get as herion or crack.

By that logic, most people are buying heroin or crack.

If buying guns had the same sort of social stigma as buying drugs, then most people wouldn't bother. More than that: I can't speak for any other countries, but I can testify that here in the UK, buying almost any drug besides heroin or crack is - whilst still illegal - not really considered all that big a deal. Buying a gun, however, will make an awful lot of people immediately think you are a violent criminal. (Or a farmer. Neither is considered cool.

no, by that logic most people who WANT heroin or crack would buy heroin or crack. and buy a gun in america, and noone gives a fuck. buying any drugs (aside pot, of course) and the neighborhood puts your head on a fuckin plate. That must by why drug use in america is so low, right? When people buy crack, do they run down the street screaming, "HEY, GUESS WHAT I JUST BOUGHT!!!???" No, they dont, they keep it to themselves. Why would it be different with guns? Also, if someone wants to shoot up a building, do you thing people going, "tsk-tsk, that nutjob owns guns" will stop them?

Caribou wrote:

Wade Zabel wrote:

and it is hard to kill a cinema with knives, which is why he would have uses bombs or flamethrowers. (complety legal) if someone wants to shoot up a theater, they wont be discouraged by some words on paper.

So how come this sort of thing happens every couple of years or so on average in the States, but very rarely anywhere else in the Western world? Every country has dangerous nutcases. You sure everything's alright over there?

ok, if it happens so much, name 5 massacares where they bought their guns from a gun store (not the black market.)

Janina wrote:

But how can you explain it works in other countries with strict laws against guns? Less people are killed there

Im not advocating "FREE MINIGUNS AND MISSLES FROM TOYS 'R US NO BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!", and i agree we need background checks for guns and forbid people with mental problems to buy one. Also, crime is down in america.

all im saying is that its not right to take something away that has been a part of our culture for so long because of a few assholes.

It's only part of our culture because it's the second admendment. An admendment, most likely added because of post English revolution paranoia.

Wade Zabel wrote:

murder has been a part of human existence way before drugs, and its not exactly easy to get guns in america.

You make it seem like there is absolutley nothing we can do about murder because it's been happening since the begining of time, when there is, stricter gun control laws. And guns are pretty damn easy to get here in the States. Let's see, there's the Gun Show Loophole, or you can get them legaly if you aren't a ciminal and what not, and of course you can have someone without a criminal record get you guns then of course sell them to you (the friend) through an illegal "straw purchase" like what the murderers from the Columbine school shooting did.